ID/Creationism challenge

[sphenisc]

Look, if you want to play semantic games, I'll bite.

The fact that Jack is dead is consistent with either conclusion, so in a program of piling up facts consistent with a hypothesis, then Jack's pining-for-the-fjords would constitute part of that pile.

But in real world cases, we look for facts which exclude competing hypotheses, otherwise our pile of "evidence" starts to include all sorts of irrelevancies.

For instance, the fact that the sun rose today is consistent with Alice having killed Jack, and also consistent with Bob having killed Jack. Apparently you'd say that the sun's appearance in the sky is evidence of both conclusions. I think most people understand that the sun is (so far as we can tell) irrelevant to deciding which of the two hypotheses is true. Similarly, the fact that Jack is dead offers us no help in determining if Alice killed him, or Bob killed him, or if you or I did.

Now, are you merely being pedantic troll, or are we disagreeing on some real issue?

If the sun hadn't risen today, what effect would that have on the hypothesis that Alice killed Jack?
If Jack walks into the room alive, what effect would that have on the hypothesis that Alice killed Jack?

I think that your analogy is flawed.

 

[Philosaur]

If the sun hadn't risen today, what effect would that have on the hypothesis that Alice killed Jack?
If Jack walks into the room alive, what effect would that have on the hypothesis that Alice killed Jack?

I think that your analogy is flawed.

And I think you are missing the point of the analogy, which is to show that it is unnecessary to consider facts consistent with all hypotheses when trying to decide between them.

If the sun hadn't risen, it would have exactly the same effect for either hypothesis (i.e. none at all).

If Jack walked into the room alive, it would have exactly the same effect for either hypothesis (i.e. they are both incorrect).

Getting back to the original problem: does the fact that life exists somehow exclude either ID or evolution by natural selection?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Already gave you one. The fact particles and information are quantized and coupled with the observations of experiments of quantum mechanics is a direct observation of Intelligent Design in action and the physical world interacting with the Logos, in my opinion.

Here's a quick primer - if you have to add the qualifier "in my opinion" at the end of a statement, then what you've just presented is not scientific evidence. It is, instead, opinion.

 

[Dinwar]

Here's a quick primer - if you have to add the qualifier "in my opinion" at the end of a statement, then what you've just presented is not scientific evidence. It is, instead, opinion.

Also, if you're discussing quantum mechanics you're not discussing evolution. A designer can creat all the physical laws they want, and evolution will still work--it is an emergent property of life, which is an emergent property of chemistry.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

btw, here's a paper from 1978 making some of the same claims as Davison, and of course using the term neodarwinism which I also have used here and have been blasted for it.

So...another criticism of evolutionary theory, rather than positive evidence for intelligent design, then?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think front loading could be true but do not believe evolved in the same manner as other creatures....special creation on that one.

But we'll leave that off.

No, don't leave that off. Present the scientific evidence that supports it. That's what this thread is about. Should be easy, as it's a scientific position, right?

 

[sphenisc]

And I think you are missing the point of the analogy, which is to show that it is unnecessary to consider facts consistent with all hypotheses when trying to decide between them.

If the sun hadn't risen, it would have exactly the same effect for either hypothesis (i.e. none at all).

If Jack walked into the room alive, it would have exactly the same effect for either hypothesis (i.e. they are both incorrect).

Getting back to the original problem: does the fact that life exists somehow exclude either ID or evolution by natural selection?

And you're missing the point of the OP, particularly point 1.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Somehow I knew this would turn intoanother "debunk evolution, therefore God" thread. This thread proves the point that Creationism/ID is not science.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you can substitute something like "Noncreationism is the belief God didn't create organisms" for the first premise in my argument and (adapt the argument accordingly) and still have it as valid then yes it does. If not, you're going to have to convince me some other way.

Thank you. In that case, your definition for "evidence" is entirely useless.

 

[randman]

This relates to my posts to sphenisc:

Quantum entanglement might be consistent with an intelligent designer, but it's also consistent with evolution, and fairies, and the dream of a butterfly, and Allah, and the FSM, etc.

If we allows quantum entanglement, should why not just allow anything at all as evidence of an ID?

Secondly, on quantum mechanics, you don't really understand the point or you wouldn't phrase your response in the manner you did. Imo, unless wants to posit the fantastic scenario of a gazillion alternate universes, basic QM and the experiments I cited indicate 2 things.

1. That the universe principally or at it's root is essentially immaterial. Discrete physical form is a mere by-product, a secondary effect and derived state from an immaterial existence of particles that exist at their fundamental level outside space-time as an information potential for manifesting discrete physical form (physical existence).

2. Basic QM as illustrated with the phenomenon of entanglement, which Einstein called spooky action at a distance and so had hard time accepting, is an observation of the Logos forming physical reality and governing it according to specific laws and rules; that the connection between entangled particles is by definition independent of distance and time and so outside of space-time. See the first point above. That the reason for quantization of matter or particles is that information is quantized.

These are all very positive evidences, which can be and are demonstrated with repeatable experiments and predicted by basic QM.

 

[randman]

Somehow I knew this would turn intoanother "debunk evolution, therefore God" thread. This thread proves the point that Creationism/ID is not science.

So all along you planned on allowing evos to argue evolutionist explanations and condemning anyone else for debunking them?

Besides, I gave you an ID mechanism and you guys just pretended it does not exist.

 

[randman]

No, don't leave that off. Present the scientific evidence that supports it. That's what this thread is about. Should be easy, as it's a scientific position, right?

Amazing considering your response to the point above where I did present scientific evidence for front loading via publishes papers from a biology professor that knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.

Yet, you responded:

btw, here's a paper from 1978 making some of the same claims as Davison, and of course using the term neodarwinism which I also have used here and have been blasted for it.

So...another criticism of evolutionary theory, rather than positive evidence for intelligent design, then?

 

[randman]

Also, if you're discussing quantum mechanics you're not discussing evolution. A designer can creat all the physical laws they want, and evolution will still work--it is an emergent property of life, which is an emergent property of chemistry.

Wrong. You cannot win here by merely arguing QM cannot apply to Intelligent Design, although you said "evolution" which according to the rules of this thread, we are not allowed to discuss.

Also, merely claiming information for life can simply emerge is not a viable claim on your part. I have shown specifically information emerging from an immaterial state into a physical one. We could discuss the idea further but I suspect it's a waste of time.

 

[randman]

Here's a quick primer - if you have to add the qualifier "in my opinion" at the end of a statement, then what you've just presented is not scientific evidence. It is, instead, opinion.

Ok, not in my opinion. The facts are incontrovertible and demonstrated by duplicatable experiments and predicted for over 80 years by basic QM.

 

[randman]

Quantum entanglement might be consistent with an intelligent designer, but it's also consistent with evolution,

Except it's not unless you want to argue the Multiverse did it, and we're not supposed to talk about evolution on this thread.

I guess the rules were designed so you guys could argue a point and not be debunked.

QM demonstrates we live in a fundamentally immaterial universe instead of a fundamentally physical one.

 

[randman]

The existence of organisms is a premise in both evolutionary theory and creationism, premises cannot be used as evidence.

Then evolution has no evidence. After all, it's based on a premise.

 

[Wowbagger]

Randman, read the following argument:

There are dings in the side of my car door, even though there is no car parked next to mine. Therefore, this is positive evidence for the existence of magical Door Ding Gnomes! They appear from thin air, when they think no one is around, with little picks and hammers, to put dings into people's car doors.​

Can you develop an argument for Intelligent Design that is better, more reliable for biology - than my Door Ding Gnome Theory is for explaining car door dents?

 

[Slimething]

Who said anything about preternatural? Just because you don't get the concept of quantization and entanglement does not mean you are free to dismiss someone's views of what is going on.

Oh, I get them. You don't get the point of science. Just because you can't explain something, you can't pin that on a deity. You're just foisting the god of the gaps. Simple. That's not allowed.

Quantum mechanics is falsifiable. You may not like it but it is.

Not what I was refering to. Your interpretation is not falsifiable. You're warping the science to your ends.

Answer my questions: without invoking a trillion alternate universes and more, in what manner are 2 particles entangled, a direct observation, in respect to time and distance.

Ummm. I don't know. Same as you. Only difference is I'm not invoking some thousands-year-old myth to cover up my ignorance. See how that works? You don't know then you don't know. No gods involved.

If you cannot answer it, just say so and let someone else talk about the subject.

No. You can't answer it either but you're talking plenty loud. I get to call you on it. Sucks to be you.

 

[randman]

Randman, read the following argument:

There are dings in the side of my car door, even though there is no car parked next to mine. Therefore, this is positive evidence for the existence of magical Door Ding Gnomes! They appear from thin air, when they think no one is around, with little picks and hammers, to put dings into people's car doors.​

Can you develop an argument for Intelligent Design that is better, more reliable for biology - than my Door Ding Gnome Theory is for explaining car door dents?

Sure. Already did. QM is an observation of the Logos interacting with and manifesting the physical world (discrete physical form).

 

[randman]

Oh, I get them. You don't get the point of science. Just because you can't explain something, you can't pin that on a deity. You're just foisting the god of the gaps. Simple. That's not allowed.

What I am saying is completely falsifiable though I admit that invoking a Multiverse is an alternative. I disagree that the Multiverse is more explanatory but considering those working on that, I can't irrefutably say they are wrong.

It takes a lot for me to say one group's theory is wrong for sure. You could say aliens are secretly among us and I might say, well, let's see the evidence or express some doubt. But I cannot rule it out.

About the only thing that can be is NeoDarwinism.